My only objection to network=US:US:Business / ref=80 is How do you
know it's Business-80 or 80-Business on the signs?
In essence here, we have the tension between free-format tagging and
machine-parsable and understandable tagging. Syntax and semantics. We
*definitely* don't need tagging with
On Oct 24, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com wrote:
NE2 asked me to revert the changes, because he's unhappy with me moving the
route variant information from the ref tags to the modifier tags, e.g.
turning ref=80
Paul Johnson writes:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
My only objection to network=US:US:Business / ref=80 is How do you
know it's Business-80 or 80-Business on the signs?
Isn't that the argument in favor of network=US:US / ref=80 /
On 10/27/12 2:46 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
If the former, then it matters if it's Business-80 or 80-Business. If
the latter, then as long as we preserve the modifier, then we're good.
at this point, i think i've seen enough to know that what goes on the signs
can be a little bit unpredictable. on
Richard Welty writes:
On 10/27/12 2:46 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
If the former, then it matters if it's Business-80 or 80-Business. If
the latter, then as long as we preserve the modifier, then we're good.
at this point, i think i've seen enough to know that what goes on the signs
can be
On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
On Oct 21, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
I feel like this scrubbing process has revealed so much about the
intricacies of different road networks that I'm going to take a slightly
different approach, and focus my work on just
Using your example, the network tag should say US:US:Business
Alexander
Michal Migurski wrote:
On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
On Oct 21, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
I feel like this scrubbing process has revealed so much about the
intricacies of
That is my understanding as well based on previous discussions.
For For US Business route 80:
network = US:US:Business
ref = 80
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Alexander Jones happy5...@gmail.comwrote:
Using your example, the network tag should say US:US:Business
Alexander
Michal Migurski
(Changing subject line to the Richard I originally meant)
That was my understanding as well, but I got feedback that boiled down to
don't mess with the network tags (too much). What do others think about this?
-mike.
On Oct 24, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
That is my understanding as
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
They use the same shield, and even TXDOT signs Farm Road and Ranch Road
interchangeably. They're definitely the same network.
While they use the same numbering sequence (as do State Highway Spurs
and State Highway
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com wrote:
I applied these changes to OSM last night, in a series of five changesets:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13611326
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612265
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote:
You can check the highway designation file for the correct designation
of specific routes. If something else is on the sign, the local
district probably screwed up (several TxDOT district offices aren't
exactly known
On Oct 21, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
I feel like this scrubbing process has revealed so much about the intricacies
of different road networks that I'm going to take a slightly different
approach, and focus my work on just the ref and modifier tags. I can
standardize the
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.comwrote:
I think there is still some misunderstanding.
One of the transforms is:
1704295,road,US:TX:Spur,601,,US:TX,601,Spur,happy5214,5
Spur in Texas is not a modifier; it's a distinct type of route that is
numbered
Paul Johnson wrote:
FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for them to show up twice
here...
I could've sworn that the general consensus from a previous argument was
one network per shield type.
Alexander
___
Talk-us mailing list
On Oct 22, 2012 9:57 AM, Alexander Jones happy5...@gmail.com wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for them to show up twice
here...
I could've sworn that the general consensus from a previous argument was
one network per shield type.
They use the same
On Oct 22, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Oct 22, 2012 9:57 AM, Alexander Jones happy5...@gmail.com wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for them to show up twice
here...
I could've sworn that the general consensus from a previous
Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Alexander Jones
happy5...@gmail.comwrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Oct 22, 2012 9:57 AM, Alexander Jones
happy5...@gmail.com wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:57 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote:
Did they switch from one term to the other at some point? If so, the mix
of signs on the same route might be because some of the signs have been
replaced as they rusted out and/or got used for target practice.
Not
On 2012-10-20 4:00 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
- Normalizing network names for all county routes with the :CR infix
I'm not enthusiastic about sticking `:CR` in all the county route
relations. I favor `US:[state]:[county]`, at least for the relations in
Ohio, for the same reason we
On Oct 21, 2012, at 5:28 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
On 2012-10-20 4:00 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
- Normalizing network names for all county routes with the :CR infix
I'm not enthusiastic about sticking `:CR` in all the county route relations.
I favor `US:[state]:[county]`, at least for
I think there is still some misunderstanding.
One of the transforms is:
1704295,road,US:TX:Spur,601,,US:TX,601,Spur,happy5214,5
Spur in Texas is not a modifier; it's a distinct type of route that is
numbered separately from the main state highway system. Same deal
with Loop, etc.
I did not know about the Aperiodic site, very cool!
It sounds from the advice there that I should use a different strategy with the
network tags, and duplicate the Loop, Business and other modifiers to that
tag.
-mike.
On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:26 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote:
My only concern with
Based on feedback from route relation mappers and people on this list, here's a
list of 7,575 route relation changes I'd like to make:
http://mike.teczno.com/img/OSM-Extracted-Routes-changes.csv.zip
Some of the rules I've followed:
- Shortening ref tags to just what goes on a
On Oct 20, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
From: Michal Migurski [mailto:m...@stamen.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:01 PM
To: OpenStreetMap U.S.
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
Based on feedback from route relation mappers and people on this list,
here's
On Oct 18, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
We're getting ready to do a major data update to the Stamen Terrain layer
and I've been working on scrubbing the route relations data from OSM. I've
the scrubbing looks mostly ok, BUT...
i am one of the folks who started out using US:state:CR for county
route networks, which i now believe was
a mistake. we really should be using county names, not CR in the network
tag, e.g.
network=US:NY:Rensselaer
otherwise we can't really tell which
Hi Richard, thanks!
The CR vs. County name thing is new to me. Another mapper suggested that I
replace them with something like this so it's not necessary to know all the
county names in order to correctly interpret something as a county route:
network=US:NY:CR:Rensselaer
Kosher?
it's not a traditional method of doing that, but i do think it could work.
it does also seem to address Paul Johnson's concern about distinguishing
some cases.
richard
On 10/18/12 9:36 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
Hi Richard, thanks!
The CR vs. County name thing is new to me. Another mapper
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
We're getting ready to do a major data update to the Stamen Terrain layer and
I've been working on scrubbing the route relations data from OSM. I've linked
to a before and after CSV, processed via Google
30 matches
Mail list logo
